Marcal Fin. SA v. Sutton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that a method step was carried out by the direct infringer, even in the absence of direct evidence for each direct infringer
• holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that a method step was carried out by the direct infringer, even in the absence of direct evidence for direct infringer
• holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that a method step was carried out by the direct infringer, even in the absence of direct evidence for each direct infringer
• finding that district court \could easily have determined that [defendant] did not conduct a reasonable investigation\ where defendant relied on the conclusions of corporate officer with no training in patent law
• finding that district court “could easily have determined that [defendant] did not conduct a reasonable investigation” where defendant relied on the conclusions of corporate officer with no training in patent law
• affirming a district court award of enhanced damages where the district court did not discuss the Read factors for enhanced damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).